The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

JFMM
23,1 The impact of brand personality
on consumer behavior: the role of
brand love
30 Cristela Maia Bairrada
Faculty of Economics and Centre for Business and Economics Research,
Received 25 February 2018
Revised 10 July 2018 University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal and
Accepted 23 July 2018 Higher Institute for Accountancy and Administration, Aveiro University,
Aveiro, Portugal
Arnaldo Coelho
Faculty of Economics and Centre for Business and Economics Research,
University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, and
Viktoriya Lizanets
Higher Institute for Accountancy and Administration,
Aveiro University, Aveiro, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the influences of brand personality on consumer behavior,
with a special emphasis on the brand love construct. The aim is to expand upon existing literature in the field
of branding, investigating the relationship between brand love and brand personality through experiential
approaches to consumer behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual model and the analysis of related hypotheses were
based on a sample of 478 Portuguese clothing brand consumers. The data were collected using an online
survey and the data analysis was done using the structural equations modeling.
Findings – The results show that brand personality has a positive and significant impact on brand love,
resistance to negative information and self-disclosure and brand love has a positive and significant impact on
brand loyalty, word-of-mouth, resistance to negative information, willingness to pay more, self-disclosure and
active engagement.
Research limitations/implications – This study has some methodological limitation affecting its
potential contributions. This investigation has a cross-sectional nature and only tested a few variables as
consequences of brand personality.
Practical implications – This investigation provides evidence of the major impacts of both brand
personality and brand love, showing how they combine to boost relevant outcomes like brand loyalty, WOW,
willingness to pay more, resistance to negative information, self-disclosure or active engagement.
Originality/value – The originality of this research is related to three fundamental aspects: it is the first
time the relationship between brand personality and brand love is tested using second-order modeling to
capture the combined effects of all dimensions of brand personality; the influence of brand personality is
usually related to attitudes (e.g. word-of-mouth, willingness to pay more, etc.) and not with feelings, such as
love, the most powerful feeling that can be established between two people or between a person and a brand
(in the case of brand love); and the authors tested brand love by linking brand personality and some
traditional relational outcomes under the assumption that brand love can strengthen such relationships.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Outcomes, Brand personality, Brand love, Clothing brands
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Our daily lives are full of different fashion brands constantly fighting for our attention.
In addition to this vigorous competition between fashion brands, consumers are also more
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management discriminating and knowledgeable than ever, which results in more carefully considered
Vol. 23 No. 1, 2019
pp. 30-47
purchasing decisions. Faced with this new reality, creating an emotional brand attachment
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1361-2026
is a key issue in brand management (Malär et al., 2011). Many researchers have noted that
DOI 10.1108/JFMM-07-2018-0091 consumers develop relationships with brands that reflect their relationships with people
(Liu and Chang, 2017). In this sense, companies are increasingly searching for strategies Brand
that enable them to establish a strong emotional bond with consumers. According personality
to Roy et al. (2016), customer brand relationship management is a significant topic
of study for both practitioners and academics. Two widely researched constructs
in this field are brand personality and brand love. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) show that
hedonic and self-enhancing products are more prone to fostering brand love. The
anthropomorphism found between human love and brand love, like human personality and 31
brand personality (Aaker, 1997), demonstrates that the relationship between brand love and
brand personality requires further exploration (Batra et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2015).
The need for further study is compounded by the fact that the existing studies that have
attempted to establish a link between brand personality and brand love have failed to define
more than just partial relationships between a few dimensions of these two constructs
(Becheur et al., 2017).
To this end, the purpose of this research is to analyze the influences of brand personality
on consumer behavior, with a special emphasis on the brand love construct. The aim is to
expand upon existing literature in the field of branding, investigating the relationship
between brand love and brand personality through experiential approaches to consumer
behavior (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
Exploring the concept of brand love is also of utmost importance in this research, given
its relevance to marketing and to the consumer–brand relationship. Understanding how
customers experience a feeling of love (Batra et al., 2012) or how they bring love into their
relationships with a brand may be critical both for researchers and practitioners. In fact, this
concept has grown in popularity as marketing literature has progressively shown that
brands are evaluated not only by their functional criteria, but also by symbolic aspects
(Das, 2015, p. 181) like self-congruity or identification, which may help marketers to better
understand how brand personality transfers its effects to customer behavior. Furthermore,
“because brand personality is formed by associating a brand with human emotions and
traits, it will sometimes capture aspects of human personality” (Kim et al., 2018, p. 95).
The originality of this research is related to three fundamental aspects: it is the first time
the relationship between brand personality and brand love is tested using second-order
modeling to capture the combined effects of all dimensions of brand personality; the
influence of brand personality is usually related to attitudes (e.g. word-of-mouth, willingness
to pay more, etc.) and not with feelings, such as love, the most powerful feeling that can be
established between two people or between a person and a brand (in the case of brand love);
and we tested brand love by linking brand personality and some traditional relational
outcomes under the assumption that brand love can strengthen such relationships.

2. Conceptual framework and research hypotheses

2.1 Conceptual framework
The present section is intended to provide the conceptual framework underlying all hypotheses.
To begin, this research is guided by two specific objectives. First, to determine whether brand
personality, an independent variable, leads to the creation of strong human feelings like brand
love, and second, whether brand personality relates to other important consumer behavior
variables like: brand love, brand loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, willingness to pay more
self-disclosure, resistance to negative information and active engagement.
2.1.1 Brand personality. In contrast to “product-related features,” which tend to serve a
utilitarian function for consumers, brand personality tends to serve a symbolic function (Keller,
1993). Brand personality is a kind of brand association that explains the symbolic consumption
and the emotional connections that consumers establish with a brand (Aaker et al., 2004;
Aaker and Fournier, 1995; Aaker, 1997, 1999). According to Caprara et al. (2001), personality
is a viable metaphor whose latent idea lies in the fact that a consumer creates affinities toward
JFMM brands based on his or her personality (Louis and Lombart, 2010). According to Aaker (1997),
23,1 brand personality is defined as the set of human characteristics related to a brand, based on an
approach that results from the anthropomorphizing of the brand. This identification between
individual and brand traits may contribute toward the development and reinforcement of the
relationships between customers and brands (Sundar and Noseworthy, 2016).
Some researchers have shown the importance of brand personality and how this concept
32 allows a consumer, through the use of and identification with a brand, to express his
or her own self (Belk, 1988) or an ideal self (Malhotra, 1988). Viewed from this perspective,
according to Kim et al. (2001), self-expression is related to its self-expressive value, in the
sense that it helps consumers to express and enhance their self-concept and reflect their
personality. The same authors found that, the higher the self-expressive value and the
distinctiveness of the brand personality, the more attractive the brand personality will be.
In the present research, brand personality is explored considering its five dimensions:
peacefulness, passion, sincerity, sophistication and excitement. It should be noted that these
brand personality dimensions reflect the Spanish scale, developed by Aaker et al. (2001). It is
therefore an adaptation of the original scale developed by Aaker with American consumers
(1997), since commercial brands may carry both culturally common and culturally specific
meanings, which is precisely why the Spanish scale was adopted for this research, as it is
culturally closer to the population being studied.
Several different consequences of brand personality have been identified, such as
brand quality, attitudes toward the brand, intentions of future behavior, trust, attachment,
commitment, persuasion and affect (Su and Tong, 2015). However, even if these impacts
are empirically tested, their means of transfer are not absolutely clear. Most research
attempts to identify the impacts of each of these dimensions, but sometimes only a few of
the mare analyzed (Molinillo et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2016; Matzler et al., 2016). Because of
their importance and the potential factorial structure of the data collected, sincerity and
excitement are the most cited dimensions and the ones that are easiest for customers to
perceive (Roy et al., 2013). Accordingly, Malär et al. (2012) suggest using the singularity of
a brand’s personality, instead of considering all its dimensions. In fact, when attempting to
develop a brand personality, companies focus their marketing efforts on a combination of
dimensions that converge on “single-mindedness” (Malär et al., 2012), a singular idea that
is formed in a customer’s or prospective customer’s mind. Consequently, more than their
individual impacts, what matters is how these dimensions combine to produce a single
idea in the consumer’s mind. Finally, Aguilar et al. (2016) suggest that the use of a
reflexive second-order model for brand personality provides a better fit and an easier
explanation of the effects of brand personality on its outcomes. In fact, in using a second-
order model, the perceptions related to all dimensions are retained and contribute to the
overall explanation, contrary to modeling based on a first-order approach. In this way, it is
possible to identify an overall impact as well as the weights of the brand personality
dimensions (Aguilar et al., 2016).
2.1.2 Brand love. Among all consumer-brand relationships present in the literature,
brand love seems to be one of the most recent and popular marketing constructs (Batra et al.,
2012; Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Turgut and Gultekin,
2015). According to Fournier (1998), the core elements of the consumer-brand relationship
include love and passion, with “love” being defined as a richer, deeper and longer lasting
feeling than a simple preference for the brand. Love is regarded as a very complex emotion,
perhaps the most complex of all (Loureiro and Kaufmann, 2012). More than a feeling, brand
love is considered a real emotion (Ahuvia, 2005).
The consumer-brand love relationship involves multiple cognitive, affective and behavioral
experiences. Batra et al. (2012) present seven brand love dimensions: passion-driven behaviors,
(passionate desire, desire to invest resources); self-brand integration (desired self-identity, Brand
current identity, meaning of life, frequent thoughts); positive emotional connection (intuitive fit, personality
emotional attachment, positive emotions); long-term relationship; anticipated separation
distress; and attitudes and confidence. Thus, the brand love relationship is deep and enduring,
such that the loved brand is considered irreplaceable (Albert and Merunka, 2013). It is
important to highlight that brand love is very important for business due to its effects on
word-of-mouth (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), loyalty (Batra et al., 2012), willingness to pay more 33
(Thomson et al., 2005) and resistance to negative information (Turgut and Gultekin, 2015), to
name a few.

2.2 Research hypotheses

2.2.1 Consequences of brand personality. The influence on brand love. It is expected that
consumers develop strong feelings, such as love, for some brands, since brand love is one
of the six dimensions of consumer–brand relationships (Fournier, 1998). The effects of
different brand personality dimensions and the partner quality inferences that each involves
(Aaker et al., 2004) may boost these consumer–brand relationships. A consumer can create
and develop a love relationship with a brand with a strong personality, since consumers
often think of brands as if they were people, attributing and imbuing them with different
personality characteristics (Aaker, 1997). Based on the fact that brands, like individuals,
have different personalities, brand personality is considered an important factor in
increasing bonds and engagement, in the same way that people establish links with one
another (Bouhlel et al., 2011). Aguilar et al. (2016) suggest that, the more positively a brand’s
personality is perceived, the more it is considered sincere and competent and the more likely
a consumer is to feel love for it. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Brand personality is positively related to brand love.
The influence on brand loyalty. Oliver (1999, p. 34) defines brand loyalty as a “deeply held
commitment to re-buy a preferred good/service consistently in the future, thereby causing
repetitive same-brand purchasing, despite situational influences, and marketing efforts
having the potential to cause switching behavior.” Developing a salient brand personality
that provides symbolic benefits to consumers can significantly contribute toward
establishing a lasting bond with consumers (Kim et al., 2011). Louis and Lombart (2010)
developed an integrated model of the relational consequences of brand personality
and showed the positive influence of brand personality on brand commitment (Louis and
Lombart, 2010). It became evident that competence and sophistication are some brand
dimensions that positively influence attitudinal/affective loyalty as well as behavioral
loyalty (Lin, 2010). As a result, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H2. Brand personality is positively related to brand loyalty.
The existence of close relationships between a brand and its consumers tends to reflect the
level of positive affect and stronger feelings evoked by that brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2001). Along this line of reasoning, Albert and Merunka (2013) showed the significant
influence of brand love on brand commitment, thus demonstrating that brand love
influences attitudinal loyalty and, consequently, influences long-term brand relationships.
Therefore, loyal consumers, driven by emotion, are those who have a strong attachment to
one particular brand, excluding other alternatives from their consideration sets (Fournier,
1998; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006).
It is worth noting that this positive and significant relationship between brand love and
loyalty has already been empirically evidenced in previous studies (Carroll and Ahuvia,
2006; Batra et al., 2012; Bıçakcıoğlu et al., 2016). Turgut and Gultekin (2015) have also shown
JFMM the influence of brand love on repurchase intention for clothing brands. Accordingly, we
23,1 suggest the following hypothesis:
H3. Brand love is positively related to brand loyalty.
The impact on word-of-mouth. In its broadest sense, word-of-mouth communication
includes any information about a target object (e.g. company, brand) transferred from one
individual to another, either personally or via some communication medium (Brown et al.,
34 2005). Effectively, word-of-mouth involves behaviors such as communicating the positive
aspects of a brand to others (Gremler and Gwinner, 2000) and making favorable
recommendations regarding third-party brand products (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Carroll
and Ahuvia, 2006), thus promoting the brand to other consumers. Given that this construct
plays an important role in shaping consumer attitudes and behaviors, it is becoming a
notable tool in integrated marketing communication (Harrison-Walker, 2001).
As suggested by Freling and Forbes (2005b), brand personality affects consumers’
feelings, perceptions, attitudes and behavior. Accordingly, by buying a brand that is similar to
their actual personality, the consumer is communicating something about who they are
(Aaker, 1999; Keller, 1993), which may contribute to the dissemination of positive
word-of-mouth (Ismail and Spinelli, 2012). To elaborate on the last point, Ismail and Spinelli
(2012) found that the excitement dimension of brand personality (daring, spirited, imaginative)
has a direct and positive impact on word-of-mouth. Attaching personality to brands can make
them more desirable to the consumer (Bouhlel et al., 2011), leading them to recommend the
brand, spread positive word-of-mouth and encourage other consumers to buy it (Ismail and
Spinelli, 2012). Consequently, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H4. Brand personality is positively related to positive word-of-mouth.
Brand love is linked to a desirable post-consumption behavior, such as loyalty and positive
word-of-mouth, demonstrating the importance of this construct for developing an affective
relationship with consumers (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Thus, by building an emotional
relationship with consumers, companies will encourage customers to speak positively about
brands they love (Ismail and Spinelli, 2012). In this perspective, positive word-of-mouth is an
emotional outcome of the consumer-brand relationship (Ismail and Spinelli, 2012). If a
consumer nurtures intense feelings like love for a brand, then it is also expected that the
consumer will say positive things to others about the loved brand, which, in turn, increases the
diffusion of the brand in the market (Sarkar, 2011). Previous research has shown a positive link
between brand love and positive word-of-mouth. That is, if consumers feel they love their
brands, that, in turn, may translate into a desire to say positive things and recommend it to
friends and relatives (Batra et al., 2012; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). In this sense, consumers are
important spokespersons for brands they love (Dick and Basu, 1994; Harrison-Walker, 2001;
Bıçakcıoğlu et al., 2016), being the first to suggest them to others to buy (Loureiro and
Kaufmann, 2012). Similarly, based on previous findings, we propose a positive relationship
between a consumer’s brand love and the desire to speak positively of the loved brand,
recommending the brand and its products. Consequently, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H5. Brand love is positively related to positive word-of-mouth.
The impacts on resistance to negative information. As Batra et al. (2012) note, resistance to
negative information is the degree to which consumers do not allow negative information
negatively influence their evaluations about the brand (Eisingerich et al., 2011). In an effort
to understand and eventually predict consumers’ responses to brands and their actions,
research in marketing has explored various types of relationships that consumers may form
with brands (Eisingerich et al., 2011), since strong consumer–brand relationships may be at
the heart of consumers’ resistance to negative information.
 Even if the relationship between brand personality and resistance to negative information Brand
lacks empirical evidence, the literature widely suggests that the relationship between brand personality
personality and attitudes toward brands (Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer, 2013), like commitment
(Louis and Lombart, 2010) and brand loyalty (Kim et al., 2001), are closely linked to negative
information avoidance. Consequently, we propose the following hypothesis:
H6. Brand personality is positively related to resistance to negative information.
When a consumer loves a brand, it means that the brand is relevant on a personal level, 35
becoming integrated into the consumer’s identity (Batra et al., 2012). That is, when the
consumer identifies with a brand that they love, their resistance to negative information
increases. On the other hand, the extent of resistance to negative information is influenced
by both satisfied and committed customers (Eisingerich et al., 2011; Turgut and Gultekin,
2015). Since brand love is the extent of a satisfied consumer’s passionate emotional
attachment (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), a strong consumer–brand relationship increases
resistance to negative information (Batra et al., 2012). Accordingly, it is expected that:
H7. Brand love is positively related to resistance to negative information.
The impacts on willingness to pay more. When a consumer is emotionally attached to a
brand, they are more willing to perform behaviors that use significant consumer resources
(time, money, reputation) and make financial sacrifices in order to obtain it (e.g. willingness
to pay a price premium) (Thomson et al., 2005). Therefore, the willingness to pay more
embodies the behavioral outcome associated with the strength of a consumer’s brand
preferences (Chernev et al., 2011), being defined as the amount a customer is willing to pay
for their preferred brand over comparable/lesser brands of the same package size/quantity
(Netemeyer et al., 2004). Thus, it is one of the strongest indicators of brand loyalty.
Brands with strong and positive brand personalities tend to influence consumer
perceptions and preferences (Freling and Forbes, 2005a) and may lead to an increased
willingness to continue using a given brand and to pay premium prices for a brand (Freling
and Forbes, 2005b). Freling and Forbes (2005a) also found that brand personality may
differentiate the brand from other competitors in the consumer’s mind, thus offering a
distinct form of sustainable competitive advantage. Even if this relationship lacks empirical
evidence, the literature shows that the perception of unique, differentiating features of a
brand influences the willingness to pay a higher price for it (Netemeyer et al., 2004).
Consequently, we suggest that:
H8. Brand personality is positively related to willingness to pay more.
Concerning brand love, research suggests that the degree of emotional attachment to an
object predicts the nature of an individual’s interaction with that object (Kim et al., 2010).
Thus, customer love increases over time, based on interactions between a consumer and the
brand. These interactions encourage the development of meaning and evoke strong
emotions in reference to a brand (Thomson et al., 2005). In this sense, individuals who are
strongly emotionally attached to a brand feel that the brand is irreplaceable, thus displaying
specific behaviors such as a willingness to make financial sacrifices, including paying a
higher price, in order to obtain a certain brand (Thomson et al., 2005). Consequently, it is
expected that when consumers feel love for certain brand, they will not switch to other
competing brands even if the marketer charges a premium price. Thus, we propose the
following hypothesis:
H9. Brand love is positively related to willingness to pay more.
The impacts on self-disclosure. Self-disclosure is a relatively new relational construct
(Kim et al., 2010). Self-disclosure is defined as the customer’s willingness to share personal
JFMM information details leading to a more intimate relational bond with a brand (Aaker et al.,
23,1 2004; Kim et al., 2010). Apparently, there are no previous studies that empirically relate
self-disclosure with brand personality. However, the role of brand personality in
establishing strong relationships with the consumer is undeniable (Aaker et al., 2004), with
intimacy being one of the four relationship strength indicators (in addition to commitment,
satisfaction and self-connection). Consequently, it is expected that a consumer who has a
36 strong relationship with a particular brand will feel more comfortable sharing personal
details with it. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H10. Brand personality is positively related to self-disclosure.
Consumers often invest resources like emotions, loyalty and personal information in a
particular brand with the expectation of receiving special benefits later on in the
relationship (Morais et al., 2005). The strength of a consumer’s emotional connection to a
brand increases over time, as brand interactions occur (Kim et al., 2010). This relational
outcome was recently explored in a study conducted by Kim et al. (2010), where the authors
provided empirical evidence that customer love has a positive effect on self-disclosure,
showing that satisfied customers are mainly driven by their affective state when
considering self-disclosure, although they do not suggest that customer love is the only
driver of self-disclosure. Based on these studies, it is expected that the combination of a
strong and positive brand personality with consumer–brand love will lead to greater
openness in providing personal information to the brand to preserve their relationship with
it. Therefore, it is expected that:
H11. Brand love is positively related to self-disclosure.
The impacts on active engagement. Active engagement is defined as when customers are
willing to invest time, energy, money or other resources in the brand beyond those that
are expected during purchase or consumption (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010). This
construct encompasses a more proactive attitude toward the brand, including behaviors
such as visiting the brand’s website, following news about the beloved brand, as well
as buying brand merchandise.
According to Freling and Forbes (2005b), a strong and positive brand personality
provides the consumer with emotional fulfillment and may lead to an increased willingness
to continue using a given brand and engage with it. Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen (2010) found
that, of the six brands explored in their investigation, consumers showed a stronger attitude
toward self-expressive brands (i.e. brands with greater identification between consumers
and brand personality, such as clothing and technology brands, i.e. iPod) than toward more
utilitarian branded products.
From this perspective, when a brand has a strong personality, it may increase the
customer’s willingness not just to continue buying that brand, but also to visit the brand’s
webpage, buy brand merchandise, follow news about the brand, as well as say positive
things about it.
That means that brand personality leads to active engagement. Consequently, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H12. Brand personality is positively related to active engagement.
When consumers believe that a brand makes life meaningful and worth living, they may
develop feeling of love for that brand (Batra et al., 2012), reflecting a greater willingness to
make sacrifices (Kim et al., 2010). Therefore, it is not surprising that beloved objects and
activities require a considerable investment of time and energy (Ahuvia, 2005). It should be
highlighted that, in a study by Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen (2010), a positive relationship
between brand love and active engagement was empirically evidenced. Consequently, it is
expected that a strong and positive brand personality, as well as brand love, both have a Brand
positive relationship with active engagement, leading the consumer to behave in a more personality
proactive way in relation to the beloved brand. Thus, it is expected that:
H13. Brand love is positively related to active engagement.
The proposed model presents the set of hypotheses developed (Figure 1). These hypotheses
express the means to achieve the proposed objectives of this investigation. 37
3. Method
The study was carried out in Portugal and structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to
test the proposed hypotheses. The proposed model that includes key variables of this
research is depicted in Figure 1.

3.1 Sample and data collection

The present survey was administered during February and March of 2016, collecting 478
valid responses. Considering the purposes of this study, data were collected from a snowball
sample. An online questionnaire was used and distributed to Portuguese individuals aged
between 18 and 67 who had received all information necessary to complete the questionnaire
and to share it with other potential respondents. The use of a snowball method, which has
been frequently used to investigate the relationship between brands and consumers (Albert
et al., 2008; Valta, 2013), is a faster way to collect data and obtain a bigger sample. Of the
478 respondents, a total of 35.4 percent were male and the majority (64.6 percent) were
female, with an average age of 27. Additionally, 55.2 percent had an income between €500
and €1,499, 47.7 percent were workers and the majority of respondents were still students
(60.1 percent). Also, 58.8 percent held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Moreover, 80.5 percent
were single and 58.8 percent were part of a household between three and four individuals
(Table I).
The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate their preferred clothing brand (one they
are strongly attached to and have bought before). In total, 88 different clothing brands were

H2
H3 Loyalty

H5 Positive word- H4
of-mouth

Brand H7 Resistance to H6
personality Brand love
negative info
H9
H1 H8
Willingness to
H11
pay more
H10
Self-
disclosure
H13 H12
Active
engagement
Figure 1.
Conceptual model
JFMM Gender Academic qualification
23,1 Female 309 64.6% High School 144 30.1%
Male 169 35.4% University attendance 53 11.1%
Total 478 100% Bachelor’s degree or higher 281 58.8%
Total 478 100%
Age
38 Minimum 18
Maximum 67
Average 27
Outcomes Marital status
Under €500 41 8.9% Not married 385 80.5%
€500–€999 128 27.8% Married 84 17.6%
€1,000–€1,499 126 27.4% Divorced 9 1.9%
€1,500–€1,999 102 22.2% Widower 0 0.0%
More than €2,000 63 13.7% Total 478 100%
Total 460 100%
Did not answer 18
Occupation Household
Student 223 46.7% 1 person 66 13.8%
Self-employed 23 4.8% 2 people 85 17.8%
Unemployed 23 4.8% 3 people 106 22.2%
Employed 141 29.5% 4 people 175 36.6%
Retired 4 0.8% 5 people 37 7.7%
Table I. Employed and student 64 13.4% More than 6 people 9 1.9%
Sample characteristics Total 478 100% Total 478 100%

reported in the results, with 22.4 percent stating that they had a special relationship with
the brand Zara, 6.1 percent with Tiffosi, 5.2 percent with Mango, 4.8 percent with H&M and
4.8 percent with Pull & Bear.

3.2 Measures
The measurement items used in the study were based on a review of the literature.
Therefore, the variables used in the research model were adapted from commonly accepted
scales and operationalized, namely, brand love (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), brand personality
(Aaker et al., 2001), resistance to negative information (Eisingerich et al., 2011; Bagozzi et al.,
2014); willingness to pay more (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Netemeyer et al., 2004), self-disclosure
(Cho, 2006), active engagement (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010), brand loyalty
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Bagozzi et al., 2014), that measure repeated buying and
positive word-of-mouth (Gremler and Gwinner, 2000; Zeithaml et al., 1996), and that measure
a positive attitude of recommendation. Finally, it is important to highlight that all the items
used in the model were measured by seven-point Likert-type scales with the anchors
strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). Brand personality was used as a second-order
variable. Second-order models may be preferable when the measurement instrument
contains several different variables measured using different dimensions, producing a
more parsimonious interpretation of data and results ( Judge et al., 2002). According to
Aguilar et al. (2016), a reflexive second-order model for brand personality is the one that
presents better fit and the best way to operationalize the concept. Most investigations using
a first-order model have failed to consider the five dimensions, namely, because of the
factorial structure or simply because relationships were not significant. In a second-order
model, all dimensions account for the final results and the factorial weights may explain
how the different dimensions behave.
 After data collection, exploratory factor analysis as well as reliability analyses were Brand
carried out to ensure the internal consistency of the research constructs. These analyses personality
have shown that, in general, all the measures (e.g. KMO, Bartlett’ test, Cronbach’s α, etc.) are
satisfactory, since most of the variables have a good internal consistency.

3.3 Validity
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the psychometric properties of the 39
scales and the measurement model fit using AMOS 21. Brand personality was used as a
second-order construct (Aaker, 1997). The final model shows a good fit (incremental
fit index ¼ 0.915; Tucker Lewis index ¼ 0.907; comparative fit index ¼ 0.915; goodness of fit
index ¼ 0.822; root mean square error of approximation ¼ 0.06; χ2 /degree of
freedom ¼ 2.649). Composite reliability and average variance extracted were computed.
All scales showed values above 0.7 on average variance extracted, which is in line with the
recommendations. Discriminant validity is evidenced by the fact that all correlations
between the constructs are significantly smaller than 1 and the squared correlations
calculated for each pair of constructs is always smaller than the variance extracted for
corresponding constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), thereby confirming the discriminant
validity (Table II).

4. Findings and discussion

4.1 Findings
Amos 21 was used to perform confirmatory factor analysis and SEM to test the proposed
hypotheses. The final model shows a good fit (incremental fit index ¼ 0.901; Tucker Lewis
index ¼ 0.893; comparative fit index ¼ 0.901; goodness of fit index ¼ 0.800; root mean
square error of approximation ¼ 0.063; χ2/degree of freedom ¼ 2.890). According to
Hair et al. (2010), IFI, TLI above 0.9 may be considered good, as well as RMSEA below 0.08.
Additionally, with a basis in the Monte Carlo simulation using a perfectly identified model,
Ding et al. (1995) tested the impacts of the number of observed variables on fit indices: when
the number of observed variables in a latent variable increased from 2 to 6, the fit indices
decreased significantly, which may be the case of this model, with latent variables using
from 3 to 10 observed items. Table III presents the final results for the overall sample.
As predicted, brand personality is positively related to brand love (b ¼ 0.731, p o0.01),
resistance to negative information (b ¼ 0.138, p o0.1) and self-disclosure (b ¼ 0.152,
p o0.05), thus supporting H1, H6 and H10. Unexpectedly, brand personality does not relate
to brand loyalty (b ¼ 0.063, p W0.1), word-of-mouth (b ¼ 0.049, p W0.1), willingness to pay
more (b ¼ −0.122, p W0.1) or active engagement (b ¼ −0.015, p W0.1), thus not supporting
H2, H4, H8 and H12.

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 CR AVE

Brand personality (X1) 0.90 0.92 0.71

Brand love (X2) 0.72 0.92 0.82 0.70
Brand loyalty (X3) 0.57 0.68 0.90 0.89 0.73
Word-of-mouth (X4) 0.54 0.64 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.76
Resist. to negative information (X5) 0.31 0.29 0.37 0.36 0.84 0.85 0.67
Table II.
Willingness to pay more (X6) 0.32 0.48 0.52 0.52 0.30 0.88 0.89 0.68
Correlations,
Self-disclosure (X7) 0.44 0.47 0.41 0.43 0.21 0.44 0.84 0.85 0.66 Cronbach’s α,
Active engagement (X8) 0.52 0.69 0.64 0.65 0.26 0.46 0.46 0.72 0.74 0.51 composite reliabilities
Notes: CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted. Diagonal entries are Cronbach’s α and average
coefficients variances extracted
JFMM SRW p
23,1
H1 Brand personality→brand love 0.731 ***
H2 Brand personality→brand loyalty 0.063
H3 Brand love→brand loyalty 0.685 ***
H4 Brand personality→word-of-mouth 0.049
H5 Brand love→word-of-mouth 0.669 ***
40 H6 Brand personality→resistance to negative information 0.138 *
H7 Brand love→resistance to negative information 0.232 ***
H8 Brand personality→willingness to pay more −0.122
H9 Brand love→willingness to pay more 0.621 ***
H10 Brand personality→self-disclosure 0.152 **
H11 Brand love→self-disclosure 0.399 ***
H12 Brand personality→active engagement −0.015
Table III. H13 Brand love→active engagement 0.740 ***
Results Notes: two-tailed test. *p o 0.1; **p o0.05; ***p o0.01

H3 postulated a positive relationship between brand love and loyalty, which has received
empirical support in this research. That is, brand love has a significant positive influence on
brand loyalty. This indicates that the trend is toward brand loyalty to be more important for
consumers who value brand love, on average. The data confirm H3 (b ¼ 0.685; po0.01). H5
postulated a positive relationship between brand love and positive word-of-mouth, which is
supported by the data (b ¼ 0.669; po0.01). It can be concluded that brand love exerts a
significant positive influence on word-of-mouth. This indicates that the trend is toward positive
word-of-mouth to be more important for those consumers who value brand love, on average.
H7 predicted a positive relationship between brand love and resistance to negative
information, which is empirically supported (b ¼ 0.232; p o0.01). As predicted, brand love is
positively related to willingness to pay more (b ¼ 0.621, p o0.01), That is, brand love has a
positive and statistically significant influence on the willingness to pay more for a clothing
brand. This indicates that the trend is for willingness to pay more to be more important for
those consumers who give more importance to brand love, on average.
H11 predicted a positive relationship between brand love and willingness to give
personal information, which is empirically supported (b ¼ 0.399, p o0.01). We conclude that
the feeling of brand love for a clothing brand has a positive and statistically significant
effect on the consumer’s ability to give personal information to a beloved brand.
Finally, H13 predicted a positive relationship between brand love and active Engagement,
which is supported by the data (b ¼ 0.740, po0.01). Our findings support brand love having a
positive and statistically significant impact on active engagement. That is, this result indicates
that the trend is toward active engagement (have a more dynamic attitude toward a clothing
brand involving personal resources, time, energy and money) being more important for
consumers who value the feeling of love for a clothing brand, on average.
Table IV shows how each of the brand personality dimensions weighs on the
second-order variable.

SRW CR

Peacefulness 0.795 15.619

Sophistication 0.796 14.922
Table IV. Passion 0.908 20.494
Brand personality: Excitement 0.812 15.543
dimension weights Sincerity 0.881 18.153
Ahuvia (1993) uses Sternberg’s triangular love theory, which combines intimacy, passion Brand
and decision/commitment, to illustrate why a feeling of love may arise between a customer personality
and a brand. At the same time, passion, sincerity and excitement are the perceived
dimensions that score higher and are the dimensions that are closest to human traits in our
relationships with others. Apparently, the relationship between brand personality and
brand love may be due to the weight of these dimensions.
41
4.2 Discussion
The first part of our discussion will be focused on the consequences of brand personality.
As has already been emphasized, this is, to the best of our knowledge, the first study that
explores the relationship between brand personality and brand love. Our study underscores
the fact that brand personality does exert a strong and direct effect on brand love. As
Aaker et al. (2004) proposed, the effects of different brand personality dimensions and the
partner quality inferences that each involves boost these consumer–brand relationships. This
study also found a positive relationship between brand personality and resistance to negative
information. It is important to highlight that, to the best of our knowledge, this relationship
has not been tested yet. However, Aaker et al. (2004) found that, in the presence of acts of
transgression caused by brands, relationships with an exciting brand personality demonstrate
stronger intimacy bonds. That is, the literature indicates that resistance to negative
information may be indicative of strong relationships with consumers. Based on these ideas
found in the literature, the results of the present study complement the sparse findings. It was
concluded that the association of human traits with clothing brands plays an important role in
consumer resistance to negative information, not altering their opinion of their preferred
clothing brand. Another important aspect involves the consequence of brand personality on
self-disclosure since, again, to the best of our knowledge, past studies have not investigated
the relationship between brand personality and self-disclosure. That is, respondents who
perceive human characteristics in their clothing brands more readily share their personal
information when a clothing brand requests it. According to Fournier (1998), consumers
choose and use brands with a strong personality, with which they may establish relationships.
Therefore, this research concludes that the construct of brand personality is related to greater
openness and willingness to share a consumer’s personal data, encouraging consumers to
establish a relationship with the brand. After discussing the more important aspects related to
the consequences of brand personality, the second part of the discussion will be focused on the
consequences of brand love.
It should be highlighted that this study concluded there was a positive impact of brand
love on all variables considered in the conceptual model. Therefore, the contributions of this
work support previous findings and provide new insights regarding clothing brands.
With regard to the relationship between brand love and brand loyalty, this study
indicates a strong relationship between both constructs. In other words, these findings are
consistent with previous studies (Bairrada, 2015; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Loureiro and
Kaufmann, 2012). Therefore, passionate love for a brand is a strong indicator of brand
loyalty, translated into behavioral intentions, such as continuing to purchase the same
brand in detriment to competitor brands. In addition to these findings, this study found a
notable link between a consumer’s love for a clothing brand and positive word-of-mouth
about it. This result emphasizes the great potential of brand love, which leads consumers to
recommend their beloved clothing brand to friends and others, as well as highlight its
positive aspects. In this way, the present study is in line with earlier research (Noël Albert
and Merunka, 2013; Bairrada, 2015; Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Ismail and Spinelli, 2012;
Kim et al., 2010). Thus, it seems to make sense that, when consumers nurture strong feelings
like love for a particular brand, it is expected that they will say positive things about the
brand and recommend it to other consumers (Sarkar, 2011). Not only does brand love
JFMM influence brand loyalty and positive word-of-mouth, but it also encourages consumers to
23,1 pay a higher price in order to possess their preferred clothing brand over competing
brands. In this sense, this result also supports the findings of Albert and Merunka (2013),
Bairrada (2015), Batra et al. (2012), Kim et al. (2010) and Thomson et al. (2005). As another
contribution, the love consumers have for a clothing brand also enables them to resist
negativity about that particular brand, which is in line with previous findings
42 (Batra et al., 2012; Turgut and Gultekin, 2015). Similarly, as Batra et al. (2012) state,
consumers are indifferent to negative information about brands with which they have love
relationships. In addition to these findings, brand love is also found to influence a consumer’s
willingness to share personal data with their preferred clothing brand
(self-disclosure). It is important to emphasize that self-disclosure is a largely unexplored
variable in the marketing domain, although the link between brand love and this construct
has been empirically confirmed in the retail context (Kim et al., 2010). Thus, by highlighting
the impact of brand love on self-disclosure, this study provides new insights for brand love
literature and clothing brand management. These findings confirm that consumers are driven
by their feelings when they consider providing personal information to their favorite brand,
having the goal of creating a more intimate relational tie with it. If consumers do have a
special bond with their preferred brand, they will stick to it, without losing contact. Finally,
our study shows the strong impact of brand love on active engagement. That is, consumers
who love their clothing brands reveal a connection with the brand that involves the
investment of personal resources, such as time, energy or money. Thus, it should be noted that
the present study reinforces the previous research conducted by Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen
(2010), which inspired the inclusion of this variable in the conceptual model.
Even if branding literature lends support to the idea that brand personality may be
linked to customer-related outcomes like those we have suggested, H2 concerning brand
loyalty, H4 word-of-mouth, H8 willingness to pay more and H12 active engagement were
not supported. According to the literature and to practice, investments in brand personality
are expected to increase relational outcomes like these proposed.

5. Conclusions
This study concludes that most of the formulated hypotheses were supported. It also found
that Zara was the brand respondents preferred most, which points to the special
relationship consumers have with it. The descriptive statistics for this brand confirmed
higher brand love and loyalty when compared to other clothing brands, which imply a
greater connection with and intention to repurchase the brand. Thus, through a more
affective brand approach, this study intended to investigate the influence of brand
personality on some variables of consumer behavior such as loyalty, word-of-mouth, etc.
For this purpose, the impact of brand personality on brand love, brand loyalty, positive
word-of-mouth, willingness to pay more, resistance to negative information, self-disclosure
and active engagement were investigated. Furthermore, given the notion that consumers
associate human characteristics to brands, perceiving them as partners in a relationship, as
well as considering the extent to which brand personality could influence feelings such
as the love felt for a brand, exploring this potential link was another purpose of this
research. In addition to focusing on constructs that are already well explored in the
literature, it is important to point out that the conceptual model of this research also
considered some recent variables in the marketing domain, whose relationships with brand
personality were not investigated. Thus, the relationships between brand personality and
brand love, brand personality and self-disclosure, brand personality and resistance to
negative information are highlighted as novelties in our research model, showing the
notable link between them. In line with previous work, it was also concluded that brand love
translates into several positive behaviors, supporting all the hypotheses defined in the
model, which confirms the immense potential of this construct in understanding consumers’ Brand
attitudes and intentions (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Turgut and Gultekin, 2015). It is personality
expected that, beyond its theoretical contributions, this study could provide managerial
guidance for brand managers, given the crucial relevance of this construct for marketing.

6. Implications and limitations

6.1 Theoretical Implications 43
Even if the anthropomorphisms found between human love and brand love and human
personality and brand personality are nowadays assumed as evident, the relationships
between these have yet to be explored (Batra et al., 2012; Huber et al., 2015). This
investigation has attempted to fill this gap, exploring the relationship between brand
personality and brand love and their relationships with several different customer
behaviors. Second, we have treated brand personality as a second-order variable,
contributing to a more parsimonious interpretation of results, a better comprehension of the
relationships and including all dimensions in the analysis. According to Aguilar et al. (2016),
a brand personality reflexive second-order model may provide better fit and a better means
to understanding the chain of effects between brand personality, brand love and other
customer-related behaviors.
As a matter of fact, this investigation provides evidence of the major impacts of
both brand personality and brand love, showing how they combine to boost relevant
outcomes like loyalty, WOM, willingness to pay more, resistance to negative information,
self-disclosure or active engagement. Brand personality and brand love are not so important
per se, but because they both may contribute to the company and brand major outcomes
that strengthen the brand, increase performance and reinforce competitiveness. Thus, the
overall vision of the impacts of both brand personality and brand love constitute the major
conceptual contribution of this research.

6.2 Managerial implications

At the level of practical contributions, the findings of this research should convince
practitioners and brand managers to define more emotional strategies, based on concepts
such as brand personality and brand love. Developing feelings like brand love may be the
right way to boost the relationships between brands and consumers. A brand with a strong
and captivating personality should, at the same time, transform itself into an object of
desire, passion and uniqueness, conquering a place in the hearts of its customers. More than
promoting the physical product itself, marketing efforts must converge upon the nature of
the relationship consumers may have with them. Since love may be based on passion,
sincerity and excitement, these are the dimensions of brand personality that should be at the
forefront of marketing managers’ minds. Developing brand communities and brand
co-creation may lead to increased intimacy and involvement with brands, producing greater
identification with them and the development of feelings like brand love. Online brand
communities are one way to integrate isolated customers, linked by a brand, coming
together over their common vision of a brand, their willingness to do something for it and,
finally, their consideration of it as a part of them and their lives.
Therefore, to develop brands that are loved, managers should invest in learning about
consumers’ expectations and desires and consistently meet these through brand activities
related to advertising and communication or another promotion mix. Companies may
therefore center on attractiveness and passion while creating closer proximity between their
brands and consumers, such as by highlighting human personality traits in their
communications. Future studies must pick up on these aspects of brand personality,
especially given the significance of brand personality in determining consumer behavior.
JFMM These findings suggest that marketers need to be a little more considered in their
23,1 development of brand personality, since this will foster not only a love relationship between
the consumer and the brand but will also bolster resistance to negative information and
encourage a greater willingness to provide personal information.

6.3 Limitations and future research

44 This paper tested only a few variables as consequences of brand personality. We suggest
introducing other variables capable of extending the knowledge of this construct. Future
research in the area of brand personality should attempt to identify the antecedents of this
construct, examining it at the dimensional level, in order to develop some relevant
personality traits. Future research could also explore these variables in different categories
of products. For a better understanding of these relationships, we also suggest carrying out
longitudinal studies.

References
Aaker, J. and Fournier, S. (1995), “A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three perspectives on
the question of brand personality”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 391-395.
Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001), “Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a
study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 492-508.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S.A. (2004), “When good brands do bad”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 347-356.
Aaker, J.L. (1999), “The malleable self: the role of self-expression in persuasion”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 45-57.
Aguilar, A.G., Guillén, M.J.Y. and Roman, N.V. (2016), “Destination brand personality: an application to
Spanish tourism”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 210-219.
Ahuvia, A. (2005), “Beyond the extended self: loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 171-184.
Ahuvia, A.C. (1993), “I love it! Towards an unifying theory of love across divers love objects”, doctoral
dissertation, Northwestern University, IL.
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258-266.
Albert, N., Merunka, D. and Valette-Florence, P. (2008), “When consumers love their brands: exploring
the concept and its dimensions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1062-1075.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The social influence of brand community:
evidence from European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34.
Bagozzi, R., Batra, R. and Ahuvia, A. (2014), “Brand love: construct validity, managerial utility, and
new conceptual insights”, working paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 1-18.
Bairrada, C. (2015), Determinantes e consequências do amor pela marca: um estudo empírico, doctoral
dissertation, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), “Brand love”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2,
pp. 1-16.
Becheur, I., Bayarassou, O. and Ghrib, H. (2017), “Beyond brand personality: building consumer–brand
emotional relationship”, Global Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 3S, pp. 128-144.
Belk, R. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 139-162.
Bergkvist, L. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010), “Two studies of consequences and actionable antecedents of Brand
brand love”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 504-518. personality
Bıçakcıoğlu, N., İpek, İ. and Bayraktaroğlu, G. (2016), “Antecedents and outcomes of brand love: the
mediating role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 7266, January,
pp. 1-15.
Bouhlel, O., Mzoughi, N., Hadiji, D. and Ben Slimane, I. (2011), “Brand personality’s influence on the
purchase intention: a mobile marketing case”, International Journal of Business and 45
Management, Vol. 6 No. 9, pp. 210-227.
Brown, T.J., Barry, T.E., Dacin, P.A. and Gunst, R.F. (2005), “Spreading the word: investigating
antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing
context”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C. and Guido, G. (2001), “Brand personality: how to make the metaphor
fit?”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 377-395.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), “Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Chernev, A., Hamilton, R. and Gal, D. (2011), “Competing for consumer identity: limits to self-expression
and the perils of lifestyle branding”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 66-82.
Cho, J. (2006), “The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Das, G. (2015), “Linkages between self-congruity, brand familiarity, perceived quality and purchase
intention: a study of fashion retail brands”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 180-193, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2015.1032316
Dick, S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Ding, L., Velicer, W.F. and Harlow, L.L. (1995), “Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per
factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices”, Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 119-143.
Eisend, M. and Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. (2013), “Brand personality: a meta-analytic review of
antecedents and consequences”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 205-216.
Eisingerich, A.B., Rubera, G., Seifert, M. and Bhardwaj, G. (2011), “Doing good and doing better despite
negative information? The role of corporate social responsibility in consumer resistance to
negative information”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 60-75.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 18, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Freling, T.H. and Forbes, L.P. (2005a), “An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 404-413.
Freling, T.H. and Forbes, L.P. (2005b), “An examination of brand personality through methodological
triangulation”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 148-162.
Gremler, D.D. and Gwinner, K.P. (2000), “Customer-employee rapport in service relationships”, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 82-104.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001), “The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation
of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 60-75.
JFMM Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
23,1 fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Huber, F., Meyer, F. and Schmid, D.A. (2015), “Brand love in progress – the interdependence of brand
love antecedents in consideration of relationship duration”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 567-579.
Ismail, A.R. and Spinelli, G. (2012), “Effects of brand love, personality and image on word of mouth: the
46 case of fashion brands among young consumers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 386-398.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M.W. (2002), “Personality and leadership: a qualitative
and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 542-552.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Kim, C.K., Han, D. and Park, S. (2001), “The effect of brand personality and brand identification on
brand loyalty”, Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 195-206.
Kim, D., Magnini, V.P. and Singal, M. (2011), “The effects of customers’ perceptions of brand
personality in casual theme restaurants”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 448-458.
Kim, H.-Y., Kim, Y.-K., Jolly, L. and Fairhurst, A. (2010), “The role of love in satisfied customers’
relationships with retailers”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 285-296.
Kim, J., Kwon, E.S. and Kim, B. (2018), “Personality structure of brands on social networking sites and
its effects on brand affect and trust: evidence of brand anthropomorphization”, Asian Journal of
Communication, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 93-113.
Lin, L.Y. (2010), “The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty:
an empirical study of toys and video games buyers”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Liu, H.H. and Chang, J.H. (2017), “Relationship type, perceived trust, and ambiguity aversion”,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 255-266.
Louis, D. and Lombart, C. (2010), “Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences
(trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand)”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 114-130.
Loureiro, S.M.C. and Kaufmann, H.R. (2012), “Explaining love of wine brands”, Journal of Promotion
Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 329-343.
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B. (2011), “Emotional brand attachment and
brand personality: the relative importance of the actual and the ideal self”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 35-52.
Malär, L., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H. and Hoyer, W.D. (2012), “Implementing an intended brand
personality: a dyadic perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 5,
pp. 728-744.
Malhotra, N.K. (1988), “Self-concept and product choice: an integrated perspective”, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Matzler, K., Strobl, A., Stokburger-Sauer, N., Bobovnicky, A. and Bauer, F. (2016), “Brand personality
and culture: the role of cultural differences on the impact of brand personality perceptions on
tourists’ visit intentions”, Tourism Management, Vol. 52, pp. 507-520.
Molinillo, S., Japutra, A., Nguyen, B. and Chen, C.H.S. (2017), “Responsible brands vs active brands? An
examination of brand personality on brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 166-179.
Morais, D., Dorsch, M. and Backman, S. (2005), “Building loyal relationships between customers and
providers”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 49-56.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004), Brand
“Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of personality
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Oliver, R. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 33-44.
Roy, P., Khandeparkar, K. and Motiani, M. (2016), “A lovable personality: the effect of brand
personality on brand love”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 97-113.
Roy, S.K., Eshghi, A. and Sarkar, A. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of brand love”, Journal of 47
Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 325-332.
Sarkar, A. (2011), “Romancing with a brand: a conceptual analysis of romantic consumer-brand
relationship”, Management & Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 79-94.
Su, J. and Tong, X. (2015), “Brand personality and brand equity: evidence from the sportswear
industry”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 124-133.
Sundar, A. and Noseworthy, T.J. (2016), “Too exciting to fail, too sincere to succeed: the effects of brand
personality on sensory disconfirmation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 44-67.
Thomson, M., Macinnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), “The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 77-91.
Turgut, M.U. and Gultekin, B. (2015), “The critical role of brand love in clothing brands”, Journal of
Business, Economics and Finance, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 126-152.
Valta, K.S. (2013), “Do relational norms matter in consumer-brand relationships?”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 98-104.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 31-46.

Further reading
Das, G. (2014), “Impacts of retail brand personality and self-congruity on store loyalty: the moderating
role of gender”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 130-138.
Fullerton, G. (2005), “The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands”, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 97-110.
Kim, J., Morris, J.D. and Swait, J. (2008), “Antecedents of true brand loyalty”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 99-117.
Park, C.W., Macinnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B. and Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Brand attachment and
brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity
drivers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Plummer, J.T. (1985), “How personality makes a difference”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40
No. 6, pp. 27-31.
Sung, Y. and Kim, J. (2010), “Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect”, Psychology
& Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 639-661.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.

Corresponding author
Cristela Maia Bairrada can be contacted at: cristela.bairrada@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com